Scalia: SCOTUS will be hearing a 2nd Amendment Case soon

So it looks like SCOTUS might be hearing a 2nd Amendment case soon. He has also been softening up SCOTUS judge Elena Kagan by taking her hunting a few times, the last time she shot a doe with a rifle.

I think the case that will get heard first is Kachalsky v. Cacase, which is about issuing permits and guns outside of the home. It looks like the guns in common use, the owning of AR15's will have to be another case?

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, decrying America’s demonization of guns, is predicting that the parade of new gun control laws, cheered on by President Obama, will hit the Supreme Court soon, possibly settling for ever the types of weapons that can be owned.

The McDonald and Heller decisions have forever changed the game for gun control in the United States. The incorporation of the Second Amendment and the precedent that “commonly used” firearms cannot be banned has called into question everything from may-issue licensing to “assault weapons” ban legislation, possibly making them as unconstitutional as “separate but equal” and poll taxes. And according to Judge Scalia, the Supreme Court appears to be spoiling for a fight . . .

Scalia, whose legacy decision in the 2008 case of District of Columbia vs. Heller ended the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., suggested that the Constitution allows limits on what Americans can own, but the only example he offered was a shoulder-launched rocket that would bring down jets.

From what I’m seeing, it looks like Kachalsky v. Cacase is going to be the chosen case to get pushed to the front of the SCOTUS line, a case which would get rid of “may issue” licensing and seal the right to carry a firearm for personal protection. Dywinski v NY is the one I’d really like to see though (NY SAFE Act challenge), but we’ll have to wait for it to work its way through the lower courts before the Supremes even get their first bite of that apple.
.
.

If you enjoyed reading about "Scalia: SCOTUS will be hearing a 2nd Amendment Case soon" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

usmarine0352_2005

February 18, 2013, 12:47 PM

.

Looks like Sotomayor is also hinting about a 2nd Amendment case being heard sooner than later.

Colbert then turned the conversation to the Second Amendment, asking if Sotomayor believes “we have the right to own any weapon that we want.”

Perhaps previewing the upcoming fight on gun control in the Supreme Court, she laughed and said, “You’ll find out soon enough, when a case comes up.”
.
.

Sam1911

February 18, 2013, 01:00 PM

Ahh, good. A SC Justice with a sense of humor. :-|

leadcounsel

February 18, 2013, 01:10 PM

Scary thought. My guess is that in the next couple years, by the time a case is ripe for SCOTUS, Obama will have seated at least 1 new Justice - and likely an anti-gun Justice at that.

We won our other cases by 1 swing vote. And lost Obamacare by a swing vote when everyone predicted the opposite result.

"Independent." Rrriiigghhhtttt.... just like all of those anti-gunners support the 2nd Amendment, they just want to ban all ammo and gun accessories and limit the types of gun to single shot break open shotguns.

Scary business.

Ragnar Danneskjold

February 18, 2013, 01:26 PM

The time is coming soon for each person to decide how much he or she really values their own liberty. Many other nations rolled over and said 'yes master' when their governments demanded they give up their arms. Will we?

SilentStalker

February 18, 2013, 01:37 PM

^^^This. I am not rolling over at all. My wife probably will but she knows where I stand and I will not let this happen on my watch. Sorry. I know there are lots of others like me out there. All of this stuff the left keeps saying people want, I believe is a bunch of made up gibberish to make the sheeple believe there is a lot of people out there that want this.

bushmaster1313

February 18, 2013, 01:48 PM

Even though the New York law (which only allows 7 rounds in a grandfathered 10 round magazine) is far and away the dumbest law ever passed on a serious subject, IMHO it is a distraction that the Supreme Court is not going to look at any time in the near future.

There are, however, three cases percolating through the court system that go to the very heart of the Second Amendment in particular -- and individual Liberty in particular.

Kachalsky, 2nd Circuit, upholding the State of New York may issue law, and holding that the State can make an individual show a particular need to get a carry permit.

Wollard, District of Maryland, striking down the Maryland may issue carry permit law, and holding that the existence of a right is the only justification needed for its exercise (Duh).

Moore v. Madigan, Seventh Circuit, striking down Illinois no issue law that prohibited anyone from getting a carry permit, and holding that the right to bear arms extends outside the home (Double Duh).

It will take some fancy footwork for the Liberal Justices to side with the "May Issue" crowd. For example, would the Liberal Justices uphold a law requiring certain individuals to explain why they needed a certain medical procedure?

316SS

February 18, 2013, 01:49 PM

The time is coming soon for each person to decide how much he or she really values their own liberty. Many other nations rolled over and said 'yes master' when their governments demanded they give up their arms. Will we?

I for one would like to know where I stand sooner rather than later. As has been noted, time is not on our side as regards the Supreme Court and potential Obama appointees.

I've thought a lot about which lines I simply won't cross, as you, Ragnar, put it in another thread. I've also thought about "political tactics" such as moving to a gun-friendly state where anti-gun state laws aren't a threat and where the state legislature appear ready to fight back against the feds on new gun laws. Canada beat their registry law with mass non-compliance, which would be less risky in a state that has your back.

joeschmoe

February 18, 2013, 01:55 PM

Okay. That's not a quote from Scalia. I couldn't believe a justice would say that. It's from the link blogger, not the original article.

From what I’m seeing, it looks like Kachalsky v. Cacase is going to be the chosen case to get pushed to the front of the SCOTUS line, a case which would get rid of “may issue” licensing and seal the right to carry a firearm for personal protection. Dywinski v NY is the one I’d really like to see though (NY SAFE Act challenge), but we’ll have to wait for it to work its way through the lower courts before the Supremes even get their first bite of that apple.

So it looks like SCOTUS might be hearing a 2nd Amendment case soon. He has also been softening up SCOTUS judge Elena Kagan by taking her hunting a few times, the last time she shot a doe with a rifle.

First of all, I doubt Kagan is going to be softened up just because she went hunting with Scalia.
Heck he is best friends with Ginsberg and they do all sorts of things together, including vacations, yet she is still a rabid left wing loon who has no respect for our Constitution.

Secondly, I do not believe the issue most are worried about revolves around hunting rifles, rather a restriction on the type of firearms citizens can legally own to defend against a tyrannical government run amok.
I doubt Kagan or others will be swayed into thinking what the FF's original intent was in that regard.

`

gunnutery

February 18, 2013, 03:17 PM

Thanks for the heads up usmarine.

JTHunter

February 18, 2013, 04:16 PM

Sam1911 said:Ahh, good. A SC Justice with a sense of humor.

Gallows humor.

natman

February 19, 2013, 02:55 AM

It will take some fancy footwork for the Liberal Justices to side with the "May Issue" crowd. For example, would the Liberal Justices uphold a law requiring certain individuals to explain why they needed a certain medical procedure?

I think a better analogy would be: Would the Liberal Justices uphold a law requiring individuals to explain why they "need" to vote, assemble or practice freedom of speech?

berettaprofessor

February 19, 2013, 01:04 PM

He has also been softening up SCOTUS judge Elena Kagan by taking her hunting a few times, the last time she shot a doe with a rifle.

He needs some to offset Roberts when he rolls over and defects again.

Walkalong

February 19, 2013, 01:56 PM

There is a 99% chance Kagan will vote anti gun. She would not be there otherwise. Presidents don't appoint SCJs that do not see things their way.

We could sure use another 2nd Amendment win before we lose another pro gun Justice. Pray (Or hope, if prayer offends) for their health these next 4 years.

JRH6856

February 19, 2013, 04:22 PM

We could sure use another 2nd Amendment win before we lose another pro gun Justice. Pray (Or hope, if prayer offends) for their health these next 4 years

Slate has a Supreme Court Justice Death Calculator (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/01/supreme_court_justice_death_calculator_find_out_the_probabilities_that_different.html)if you are feeling morbid.

bushmaster1313

February 19, 2013, 08:50 PM

To win Kachalsky at the Supreme Court there are two issues:

1) Does the right to bear arms extend outside the home? At best, this will be 5-4 in our favor.

2) If the right to bear arms extends outside the home, is it proper for the state to require that the permit applicant prove an individual need to carry a gun that is different from the general need to protect oneself? At best, this will be 5-4 in our favor.

The Liberal Justices will always find a way to skirt the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.
The Conservative Justices will think about what the Amendment meant when it was ratified and decide from there.

plodder

February 19, 2013, 09:14 PM

There is a 99% chance Kagan will vote anti gun. She would not be there otherwise. Presidents don't appoint SCJs that do not see things their way

We can only hope that one of Obum......er, Obama's picks will turn out to be the surprise that Souter was for GHW Bush, but in a positive way.

bushmaster1313

February 19, 2013, 09:30 PM

We can only hope that one of Obum......er, Obama's picks will turn out to be the surprise that Souter was for GHW Bush, but in a positive way.

No way.

JRH6856

February 19, 2013, 09:46 PM

A recent analysis in Forbes commented that when picking Justices, Republicans often get surprised, Dems usually get what the expect. :uhoh:

gbran

February 19, 2013, 09:59 PM

Scalia may be sending a message to the pro-gun community to get with it now.

JRH6856

February 19, 2013, 10:42 PM

Well, a case can't get to SCOTUS until there is a law to challenge. So the sooner these proposed GC laws get passed in the various states, the sooner they can be challenged and the sooner there is a chance for SCOTUS to rule.

gbran

February 19, 2013, 10:53 PM

Well, a case can't get to SCOTUS until there is a law to challenge. So the sooner these proposed GC laws get passed in the various states, the sooner they can be challenged and the sooner there is a chance for SCOTUS to rule.

NY set the stage. I'd like to see the Sulivan nullified too.

Ryanxia

February 19, 2013, 11:01 PM

The time is coming soon for each person to decide how much he or she really values their own liberty. Many other nations rolled over and said 'yes master' when their governments demanded they give up their arms. Will we?
This folks... This..

jamesbeat

February 19, 2013, 11:03 PM

NY set the stage. I'd like to see the Sulivan nullified too.
Yes indeed, a disgusting unconstitutional and racist law.

If you enjoyed reading about "Scalia: SCOTUS will be hearing a 2nd Amendment Case soon" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!